Case Digest on Rulings Impacted due to Non-Constitution of GSTAT

The rollout of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) on July 1, 2017, was touted as a watershed moment in India’s economic and tax reform landscape. Designed to replace a host of fragmented state and central tax systems, the GST framework aimed at creating a unified, transparent, and efficient indirect taxation system. However, what was envisioned as a seamless mechanism of taxation and redressal quickly was coupled with a significant institutional void: the absence of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). For over seven years since the inception of GST, the non-constitution of this key appellate body has led to deep and sustained disruptions in the adjudication of tax disputes across the country. This case compilation documents the widespread ramifications that the non-functional status of the GSTAT has had on judicial pronouncements, with a focus on the responses of the state-wise High Courts that were compelled to serve as the de facto second appellate authority in its absence. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here While Section 109 of the CGST Act, 2017, GST provide that disputes were to progress from departmental adjudication to the First Appellate Authority and then to the GSTAT before approaching constitutional courts, in reality aggrieved parties had no other option but to knock on the doors of the jurisdictional High Courts, invoking their writ jurisdiction. This diversion of cases added to the already burdened dockets of the High Courts, which are not specialist tax tribunals per se, which have no numerous occasions resulted in delays in justice and inconsistent interpretations of GST laws. While several High Courts stepped in to mitigate the fallout, including by condoning long delays and reserving liberty for litigants to revive appeals upon constitution of the Tribunal, such measures were only solutions to mitigate damage. The effects of the delayed establishment of the GSTAT were reflective on the revenue department as well, with several matters held in abeyance and large sums in revenue stuck due to judicial indecision or prolonged pendency. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here The long-awaited operationalization of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) has taken a significant step forward with the official notification of the GSTAT Procedure Rules, 2025 on April 24, 2025, by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. Issued under Section 111 of the CGST Act, 2017 and published as Gazette Notification No. G.S.R. 256(E), these rules came into immediate effect upon their publication. This compilation brings together a curated body of decisions reported at Taxscan.in that were impacted by the non-constitution of the GSTAT, offering insights into the nature of judicial interventions and interpretations. Kerala HC Allows release of Gold Ornaments on Guarantee in Absence of GST Tribunal SHEETAL JAIN vs STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2022 TAXSCAN (HC) 1018 Kerala High Court, chaired by Justice Gopinath P. awarded an interim relief to the petitioner in the absence of the Good and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). It was ordered that it is always subjected to any remedy that the petitioner may receive from the GSTAT once it is established. The respondent department detained the petitioner Sheetal Jain’s goods, and she filed a writ petition with the HC upon receiving an order received from the respondents under Section 130 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)/State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Acts, which deals with the confiscation of goods and conveyances. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here The grievance of the petitioner is that the Appellate Tribunal has yet to be constituted, it is unable to exercise its right to appeal to it under Section 112 of the CGST/SGST Acts. The Bench observed that since the order of adjudicating authority permits the petitioner to have the goods released on payment of a total sum of Rs.75,20,478/-, the petitioner may receive the goods in exchange for paying the sum before the State Tax Officer. Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal Deprives LIC ‘s Right to Appeal under BGST: Patna HC Directs to File Appeal u/s 112 M/s Life Insurance Corporation of India vs The Union of India through the Ministry of Finance CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 639 In a recent judgment, the Patna High Court bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice Madhuresh Prasad observed that the non-constitution of GST Appellate tribunal deprives Life Insurance Corporation of India’s right to appeal under BGST and directed to file an appeal under section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act ( B.G.S.T. Act), 2017. Due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The petitioner was prevented from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of the balance amount of tax in terms of Section 112 (8) and (9) of the B.G.S.T Act upon deposit of the amounts as contemplated under Sub-section (8) of Section 112. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here A two-member bench comprising of Chakradhari Sharan Singh, ACJ and Madhuresh Prasad J observed that non-constitution of the Appellate Tribunal caused deprivation to the petitioner’s statutory right to appeal under Section 112(8)(9) and held that 20 per cent of the remaining tax in dispute is required to be deposited by the petitioner with due diligence if he is genuinely desirous of availing the remedy of appeal within four(4) weeks. Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal shall not Deprive Assessee’s Statutory Benefit u/s 112(9): Patna HC stays Deposit of Balance Tax Amount SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd vs The State of Bihar through the Secretary cum Commissioner CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 637 While staying deposit of balance tax amount the High Court of Patna held that non-constitution of Goods and Service Tax appellate tribunal should not deprive assesee’s statutory benefit under section 112(9) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Petitioner SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd is a registered company. Petitioner filed the writ petition against the order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 (BGST Act) Due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad observed that,“If the petitioner makes a deposit of a sum equal to 20 percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, then the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, for he could not be deprived of the benefit, due to non constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves”. Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal: Patna HC stays Recovery of Balance Tax amount M/s KW and Jasim Traders vs State of Bihar CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 664 The Patna High Court stayed the recovery of the balance tax amount from the petitioner on the ground of non -constitution of GST appellate tribunal. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here The petitioner, M/s KW and Jasim Traders, is desirous of availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad, noted that “The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed. It is not in dispute that similar relief has been granted by this Court in the case of SAJ Food Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. The State of Bihar & Others.” GST Dept cannot Deprive the Benefit of Assessee due to Non-Constitution of Tribunal: Patna HC Directs to File Appeal u/s 112 Kumar Ram Ranjan Singh vs The State of Bihar through the Commissioner CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 711 The Patna High Court has held that the GST dep cannot deprive the benefit of the assessee due to non-constitution of the tribunal and directed to file an appeal under section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act), 2017. Kumar Ram Ranjan Singh, the petitioner was desirous of availing statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order before the Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act. However, due to the non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy under Sub-Section (8) and Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The Court comprising Chief Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad disposed the Writ petition subject to deposit of a sum equal to 20 per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here The Court held that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. Since the order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter the office. Absence of GSTAT: Orissa HC stays Penalty and Interest Demand by GST Authorities M/s. Tushar Kanta Nayak vs Commissioner of Sales Tax CT & GST CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 737 In the absence of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), the Orissa High Court bench of Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Justice M S Raman ruled to stay the amount of penalty and interest claimed by the GST authorities. The High Court entertained the appeal only because the Second Appellate Tribunal had not yet been constituted. Kshirod Kumar Sahoo, the petitioner’s counsel, maintained that the petitioner is not obligated to pay the tax and penalty and, as such, against the order given by the first appellate authority, albeit a second appeal exists, the second appellate tribunal has yet to be formed. Conversely, Suni Mishra, the counsel of the respondent, vehemently contended that there is a delay in preferring the appeal and the court may not condone the delay beyond 4 months. Furthermore, the petitioner is obligated to pay the tax because the proceeding is on a distinct footing. If the petitioner intends to seek redress by filing an appeal with the 2nd appellate tribunal, the petitioner must pay a 20% balance disputed tax in order for the 2nd appellate tribunal to examine its case. However, the bench decided not to proceed with the penalties and interest. Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Patna HC stays Recovery of balance amount of GST Gaytri Pharma, Vs Union of India through the Secretary CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 753 A Division bench of Patna High Court granted relief to the petitioner due to the absence of the Goods and Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The High Court stayed the recovery of the balance amount of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here The bench composed of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad noted that the petitioner must be granted the legal benefit of a stay under Sub-Section (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, subject to the deposit of a sum equal to 20% of the outstanding amount of tax in dispute, if not already deposited, in addition to the amount deposited earlier under Sub-Section (6) of Section 107 of the B.G.S.T. Act. Additionally, the bench directed the petitioner appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter office. Additionally, the respondent authorities would be permitted to proceed with the case in accordance with the law if the petitioner refused to use the remedy of appeal by filing any appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act before the Tribunal within the time frame that may be stipulated upon the Tribunal’s constitution. Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Orissa HC orders to Deposit Entire Tax Demand as Interim Measure M/s. Neelachal Udyog vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1233 In a recent decision the Orissa High Court ordered to deposit entire tax demand as interim measure after considering the fact of the non-constitution of Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). It was thus contended that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority and as there is no second appellate forum, this Court should entertain this writ petition. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here A Division Bench of Justices BR Sarangi and MS Raman observed that “Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of four weeks from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.” GST recovery in Absence of GSTAT: Orissa HC Directs to pay 20% of Disputed Tax Sekh Aminur Islam vs The Commissioner of CT & GST CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1303 On a Goods and Service Tax (GST) recovery in the absence of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), the Orissa High Court directed to pay 20% disputed tax. It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax and penalty and against the order passed by the 1st appellate authority though the second appeal lies, the 2nd appellate tribunal has not yet been constituted. It was contended that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority and there is no second appellate forum. Non constitution of GSTAT: Orissa HC stays GST demand M/s. Tapas Kumar Mohanty vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1639 The Orissa High Court stayed the GST demand on the petitioner on the ground of non constitution of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax and penalty and, as such, against the order passed by the 1st appellate authority though second appeal lies, the 2nd appellate tribunal has not yet been constituted. It was contended that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority and as there is no second appellate forum, the Court should entertain this writ petition. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr BR Sarangi and Justice MS Raman observed that “Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.” Deposit of 10% of Demanded Tax amount: Orissa HC stays GST Demand on Non constitution of GSTAT Sanghamitra Nanda vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) Department of Revenue & Others CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1645 The Orissa High Court stayed the GST demand on non constitution of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) as there was deposit of 10% of the demanded tax amount. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax and penalty and, as such, against the order passed by the 1st appellate authority though second appeal lies, the 2nd appellate tribunal has not yet been constituted. It was also contended that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the demanded tax amount before the first appellate authority and as there is no second appellate forum, the Court should entertain the writ petition. A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Dr BR Sarangi and Justice MS Raman observed that “Since the petitioner wants to avail the remedy under the provisions of law by approaching 2nd appellate tribunal, which has not yet been constituted, as an interim measure subject to the Petitioner depositing entire tax demand within a period of fifteen days from today, the rest of the demand shall remain stayed during the pendency of the writ petition.” Non-Functioning of GST Appellate Tribunal: Gujarat HC stays GST Recovery Proceedings RAJKALP MUDRANALYA PRIVATE LIMITED vs SUPERINTENDENT CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 1664 The Gujarat High Court has stayed the order for recovery of dues because, as there was a challenge before the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). It was found that the though the Tribunal is constituted, it is still not functioning. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here Rajkalp Mudranalya Private Limited, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the CGST. Since no Tribunal is constituted, the challenge is undefined to the order by way of the petition. It was submitted that the department initiated recovery of the penalty under the order impugned in this petition. On one hand, though the Tribunal is constituted, it is still not functioning and the Competent undefined Authorities think it is fit to issue orders of recovery asking the assessees for information whether an appeal has been filed at all. This is a contradistinction between the authorities in question. A division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Mauna M Bhatt stayed the order initiating steps of recovery. Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Karnataka HC directs to Refund Amount Encashed by Authorities CULTGEAR PRIVATE LIMITED vs COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1502 In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court directed authorities to refund an amount encashed from a petitioner, who is engaged in the manufacturing and trading of sports goods, due to the non-constitution of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The petitioner faced a show cause notice (SCN) from the department demanding tax along with interest and penalty. Despite filing a reply to the SCN, the demand was confirmed, prompting the petitioner to appeal. The petitioner submitted he is not in a position to prefer an appeal against the impugned order dated 16.09.2023 since the appellate tribunal, GSTAT has not been constituted so far. The bench noted that, “It has been provided through the said Order that the appeal to tribunal can be made within three months (six months in case of appeals by the Government) from the date of communication of order or date on which the President or the State President, as the case may be, of the Appellate Tribunal enters office, whichever is later”, from the said circular. It was thus held by the Single Bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar that, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.11,21,840/- encashed by the respondent on 01.02.2024 within a period of one month from today.” Taxpayer cannot be deprived of benefit due to Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal: Patna HC stays Recovery Proceedings Kalpana Medical Hall vs The Union of India through the Secretary CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 1565 The Patna High Court observed that the taxpayer cannot be deprived of benefit due to Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal. The court stayed the recovery proceedings. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here Kalpana Medical Hall, a proprietary concern, has filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking various reliefs. The petitioner intends to avail the statutory remedy of appeal against the contested GST order before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act (B.G.S.T. Act). However, due to the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal, the petitioner is unable to exercise their statutory remedies under Subsections (8) and (9) of Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act. The bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy, in its conditions stated that “The petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit, due to non- constitution of the Tribunal by the respondents themselves. The recovery of balance amount, and any steps that may have been taken in this regard will thus be deemed to be stayed.” GST Payer cannot be Deprived of Benefit due to Non-Constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal: Patna HC stays Recovery GTL Infrastructure Limited vs Good and Services Tax Network CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2100 The Patna High Court stayed the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) recovery proceedings, ruling that taxpayers cannot be deprived of their legal rights due to the non-constitution of the GST Appellate Tribunal ( GSTAT ). The petitioner, M/s GTL Infrastructure Limited filed a writ petition seeking to file an appeal against tax orders under Section 112 of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act ( BGST Act), but was unable to do so because the Tribunal, responsible for hearing such appeals, had not yet been constituted. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here In its ruling, the bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy granted relief to the petitioner, subject to the deposit of 20% of the disputed tax amount, in addition to earlier deposits made under Section 107(6) of the B.G.S.T. Act. No Prejudice to Taxpayer on Non-Formation of GSTAT: Calcutta HC stays Recovery Proceedings JAI VENKTESH CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 864 The Calcutta High Court stayed the recovery proceedings as no prejudice to the taxpayer was caused by non-formation of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). The intra-court appeal was filed by the writ petitioners, Jai Venktesh Concast Private Limited and Anr against the order passed by the Single Bench directing the appellants to pay 20% of the disputed tax within a time frame for being entitled to interim protection from recovery. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that “We are of the view that recovery proceedings should remain stayed without imposing any pre-condition. Accordingly, the authorities are restrained from initiating any coercive steps for recovery till the disposal of the writ petition. Consequently, the condition imposed by the Single Bench directing deposit of 20% of the disputed tax is set aside.” Second Appeal challenging order u/s 74 of CGST Act fails due to Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Kerala HC Stays Recovery Proceedings D.C.MOHANKUMAR vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INTELLIGENCE) CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2529 In a recent case, the Kerala High Court stayed the recovery proceedings as it was found that the second appeal challenging the order under section 74 of the Central Goods and Service Tax ( CGST ) Act, 2017 failed due to the non-constitution of the Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( GSTAT ). Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here A single bench of Justice Gopinath P disposed of the writ petition directing that if the petitioner has remitted 10% of the amount in dispute as contemplated by the provisions of Section 112(8)(b) of the CGST/SGST Acts, further recovery proceedings against the petitioner for recovery of amounts due under the order as modified by the order shall remain suspended till any appeal that may be filed by the petitioner is disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal (as and when it is constituted). Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Orissa HC directs to Deposit reduced 10% Amount of GST Demanded M/s. Pramoda Kumar Swain vs Commissioner of CT and GST CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 389 In a recent case , the Orissa High Court directed to deposit reduced 10 % amount of Goods and Service Tax (GST) demanded, where the petition was filed to stay the recovery proceedings till the constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) It was submitted that his client is up against State revenue. There was modification dated 16th August, 2024 made by Central revenue reducing latter deposit to 10%. Now, State revenue has correspondingly notified on 29th October, 2024. In the circumstances, the writ petition be disposed of as covered by order dated 16th February, 2024 with modification for deposit of 10% of remaining disputed tax for impugned order to remain stayed. A division bench of Justice Arindam Sinha, the Acting Chief Justice and Justice M.S. Sahoo made on behalf of petitioner regarding corresponding notification reducing requirement of the deposit to 10% of disputed tax for the impugned first appellate order to remain stayed. Calcutta HC Stays Recovery of Outstanding GST Dues considering Non Constitution of GSTAT Rockfield Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs The State of West Bengal & Ors. CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 458 In a recent petition which is against the appellate order that allows the initiation of the Goods and Service tax recovery proceedings , the Calcutta High Court stayed the same considering the non constitution of Goods and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). Rockfield Mining and Minerals Pvt. Ltd, the writ petitioners challenged the impugned appellate order dated 19th March, 2024 passed by the respondent no.3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners further relies on Circular No.224/18/2024-GST dated 11th July, 2024 issued by the Ministry of Finance debarring the guidelines for recovery of outstanding dues in cases wherein first appeal has been disposed of, till Appellate Tribunal comes into operation. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here As the Appellate Tribunal is yet to be constituted,the court viewed that the petition should be heard. Since, the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case, there shall be an unconditional stay of the demand of the Appellate order dated 19th March, 2024, for a period of two weeks from date. The single bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj directed the petitioner to make payment of 10% of the balance amount of tax in dispute, in addition to the amount already deposited in terms of Section 107(6) of the said Act, within two weeks from date, the interim order passed herein, shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition or until further order, whichever is earlier. Non Filing of GST Appeal due to Non-Constitution of GSTAT: Kerala HC allows to file Appeal in 30 Days of Constitution of Tribunal JOJI MATHAI CHERIAN vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 487 In a recent case, the Kerala High Court allowed the assessee to file appeal in 30 days of constitution of tribunal as, it was found that the non filing of Goods and Service Tax (GST) appeal due to non-constitution of GST Appellate Tribunal. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Government Pleader, the single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas viewed that petitioner can be given the liberty to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal within 30 days of its constitution, and also if the condition stipulated in Section 112(8)(b) of the GST Act is complied with, further recovery can be deferred until disposal of the appeal. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here While disposing of the writ petition, the bench gave the liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within 30 days of the constitution of the Appellate Tribunal contemplated under Section 112(1) of the GST Act. It was further directed that if the petitioner deposits the amount of 10% as contemplated under Section 112(8)(b) within 30 days. Challenge against Order passed u/s 74 of CGST Act: Kerala HC Directs to appeal before GSTAT Considering Brink of Constitution M/S GOLD KING FASHION JEWELLERY vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CITATION: 2025 TAXSCAN (HC) 496 In a recent petition, which is against an order passed under section 74 of the Goods and Services Tax Act (GST), 2017 , the Kerala High Court directed the petitioner to approach the second appellate authority, ie, the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Authority (GSTAT), considering the brink of constitution. The court found that the tribunal is almost on the verge of being notified. Considering the aforesaid circumstances and also the claim of payment of 20% of the disputed tax, the single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas viewed that the petitioner ought to be relegated to pursue its statutory remedy of second appeal within a time limit of the constitution of the Tribunal. It was further held that “If the said amount has not already been paid, petitioner is given 30 days time from today to pay the said amount. If the said amount has already been paid, credit shall be given to that. All coercive proceedings for recovery pursuant to the order shall be kept in abeyance till the appeal as directed above is disposed of, provided the amount as contemplated under Section 112(8)(b) of the Act is paid.” Supreme Court pulls up Centre over Non-Creation of GST Appellate Tribunal after 4 years of GST AMIT SAHNI vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. CITATION: 2021 TAXSCAN (SC) 134 The Supreme Court pulled up the Centre over Non-Creation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) Appellate Tribunal after 4 years of GST. The plea was filed by Advocate Amit Sahni through Advocate Preeti Singh wherein it was contended that the citizens aggrieved of the orders passed by appellate or revisional authority are constrained to approach the respective High Courts under 226 by way of Writ Petition. This is due to the absence of an appellate tribunal and the same is overburdening the High Courts as well. The Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India Ramana and Justice Surya Kant observed that there has to be an appellate tribunal under the Act for persons aggrieved by orders of appellate or revisional authority. However, the same has not been constituted yet. “For a person aggrieved by the order passed by appellate authority under section 107 or revisional authority under 108 of the Act, an appellate tribunal has to be there in 3 months’ time under 112. Under 109 of the CGST Act, you have to create a Tribunal,” the Apex Court said. Revenue to takes steps to Reduce Litigation amid Delay in GST Tribunal Constitution after Bombay HC Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of State Tax CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 453 The Bombay High Court has again directed the revenue to take requisite steps to curb litigation in the absence of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Appellate Tribunal. In the present case, the assessee, Gulf Oil Lubricants India Ltd. has challenged the validity of statutory provisions on the ground that the GST Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted yet. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 3097 of 2022 held that the petition is maintainable, as the time to file appeals or application to the Appellate Tribunal would be counted from the date the President or the State President enters the office. The Court observed that a declaration has to be filed before the Respondent stating that an appeal is proposed to be filed, and if such declaration is not filed, then it would be presumed that the assessee is not willing to file an appeal, and recovery proceedings would be initiated. GST Appellate Authority competent by Law to Decide Question of Jurisdiction of GST Order: Telangana HC M/s Jain housing and constructions limited vs additional commissioner CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2015 In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has held that the appellate authority is competent to decide questions of jurisdiction against GST orders. The decision was rendered in the context of a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice and the subsequent Order-in-Original issued by the GST authorities. The petitioner contended that the officer who issued the notice lacked the necessary jurisdiction, rendering the order invalid. The court, presided over by Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, addressed the primary contention of the petitioner concerning the jurisdictional competence of the officer. The court noted that the issue of jurisdiction was not a purely legal question but rather a mixed question of fact and law. This distinction is important because, as the court observed, matters that involve both fact and law are best suited to be decided by the appellate authority established under the statutory framework. Orissa HC Disposes Writ Petition, Granting Petitioners Opportunity to Challenge GST Demand Until Appellate Tribunal Constituted SKM and PP (J.V), Sundargarh vs State of Odisha and others CITATION: 2024 TAXSCAN (HC) 2241 In the recent ruling the Orissa High Court, disposed of the writ petition by granting the petitioner, the opportunity to challenge the Goods and Service Tax(GST) demand until the Appellate Tribunal is constituted. SKM and PP (J.V),the petitioner-assessee,faced a demand from the State authority regarding an alleged short payment of GST. Represented by Mr. Mansing, the petitioner initially filed an appeal against this demand, but the appeal was rejected. With no functioning GST Appellate Tribunal available to challenge the appellate order, the petitioner approached the High Court for relief. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here A coram of Arindam Sinha(Judge) and M.S.Sahoo(Judge) emphasized that failure to file the appeal within the specified timeframe after the Tribunal’s establishment would allow the department to proceed with recovery actions. With these directives, the court resolved the petition. Order Preventing Assessee from Availing Benefit of Stay Recovery of Balance GST Amount passed in absence of Tribunal by GST Authorities: Patna HC directs to file Appeal u/s 112 of BGST Act Gammon Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. vs The State of Bihar CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 604 The Patna High Court (HC) directed to file an appeal under section 112 of the Bihar goods and services tax act 2017 (BGST Act) since the order preventing the assessee from availing the benefit of stay the recovery of balance GST amount passed in absence of Tribunal by GST authorities. A Coram comprising of Justice Madhuresh Prasad held that since the order is being passed due to non-constitution of the Tribunal by the respondent-Authorities, the petitioner would be required to present/file his appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act, once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional and the President or the State President may enter the office. The appeal would be required to be filed observing the statutory requirements after coming into existence of the Tribunal, for facilitating consideration of the appeal. Analyzing the Law Behind the Tax - Click Here In case the petitioner chooses not to avail the remedy of appeal by filing any appeal under Section 112 of the B.G.S.T. Act before the Tribunal within the period which may be specified upon the constitution of the Tribunal, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter, by the law. Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Case Digest on Rulings Impacted due to Non-Constitution of GSTAT

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Topics

Case Digest on Rulings Impacted due to Non-Constitution of GSTAT

Your free access to Taxscan has Expired

To read the article, get a premium account.

Taxscan Premium

Sign-up to receive exclusive news and promotions straight to your inbox!

Topics